Luke Ford

From WND: The site, which recently suspended WND’s YouTube channel for featuring Mike Huckabee’s comments on transsexuals, now has suspended the channel of an investigative reporter for showing videos that featured black on white crime.

Colin Flaherty, author of “White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It,” told WND his channel was suspended for two weeks after he posted a video featuring violence by African-Americans against white children. Flaherty also posted a video of what the author called “black mob violence against a white child.”

“Soon after, YouTube yanked it down: It said it had received complaints that I had violated the YouTube policy against posting ‘shocking, sensational or disrespectful’ videos, especially involving ‘minors participating in a harmful or dangerous activity,’” he told WND. “So YouTube kicked me off for two weeks, though my channel remains open and subscriptions have jumped dramatically.”

Flaherty has since posted a response video at another site. But he believes the political implications go far behind his temporary suspension.

“White children and adults around the country are victims of black mob violence and black on white crime that is wildly out of proportion. And reporters and public officials ignore, deny, condone, excuse, encourage and even lie about it. That’s what I call ‘shocking.’

“And seeing hundreds of videos of this kind of carnage, and seeing no one get arrested, and seeing local black activists and their white enablers blame it white racism? That is about as disrespectful as it gets.
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a civil rights activist, president and founder of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), and author of “Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America,” says conservatives and liberals have different reasons for shying away from discussion of black crime.

Peterson said: “The conservative white politicians and media are afraid to discuss black crime due to the fear of being attacked as racist. The white and black liberals won’t discuss it because they want the races to remain divided so they can continue with their agenda of redistributing wealth and taking from whites to give to minorities.”

Talk show host, lawyer, and author of “Dear Father, Dear Son” Larry Elder says people of all races don’t want to talk about black crime because “the truth is uncomfortable.” However, Elder believes “liberals’ own policies, pushed in good faith, create much of the problem.”

Elder charged: “This is a direct result of the implosion of the family in America, specifically the black family. During slavery, a black child was more likely than today to be raised under a roof with both biological mother and father. In 1965, one quarter of black kids were born outside of wedlock. Fifty years and $22 trillion spent in anti-poverty programs later, the number is over 70 percent. Even President Obama said a kid growing up without a father is five times more likely to be poor, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in jail.

“This is why the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley’s new book is titled ‘Please Stop Helping Us’ and implores liberals to do just that,” he said.

Peterson believes there is never a good reason not to report black crime, even if such reports are exploited by white racists. He told WND, “Not talking about black crime is allowing the problem to get worse because blacks don’t believe they’re wrong about anything.”

Yet there are increasing efforts by both major media companies and the federal government to manage and possibly even censor the national conversation.

The Justice Department is spending almost $600,000 to study the use of social networking by what it calls “far right” sources. And the liberal commentary site Vox is warning people against watching local news because coverage of crime could make people racist.

Peterson suggests the government may indeed try to weaken the First Amendment and control public debate.

“We have a dishonest president and government right now and they’re trying to stop anyone who is exposing what they’re doing. This administration uses the IRS and other federal agencies to intimidate and bully American citizens. And what will happen is it will drive the conversation underground and shut down other points of views from getting out to the general public,” he said.

Elder mocked the government’s efforts to track the “far right” and asked: “Why? What is the purpose of spending taxpayer dollars on this? Where’s the balance? No tracking of ‘far-Left websites?’”

Like Peterson, Elder believes the Obama administration is actively “targeting conservatives” and believes any information gathered “will be used for the Democrats’ political advantage.”

More importantly, Elder says, social norms surrounding the protection of free speech are changing.

He cites CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who was formerly ABC’s chief law and justice correspondent but nonetheless recently argued so called “hate speech” was not protected by the United States Constitution.

Elder also observes, “Perhaps the territory most inhospitable to free speech are college campuses, supposedly bastions of liberalism and free speech.”

Reflecting on the state of free speech in the United States, Flaherty says it is important to objectively present the truth, no matter who it offends.

He told WND: “I guess I could blame YouTube and its monitors in Ireland – where these decisions are made – for confusing someone who exposes violence with someone who sensationalizes it. But the videos kind of speak for themselves. Last month, they did just that 1.5 million times.”

Ben Cohen writes: Reform is an ambiguous word, open to interpretation.  Groups that support amnesty for illegal aliens and groups opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens both claim to support reform; one man’s reform is another man’s folly.

This September, the House Judiciary Committee will release its proposals for criminal justice reform.  The committee will likely suggest a number of measures, such as reducing mandatory minimum sentences, with the aim of reducing the United States’ burgeoning prison population.  In our era of hyper-polarization, reducing the prison population is a rare area of common ground among Republicans and Democrats.  Republicans want to cut costs, and Democrats want a less punitive judicial system.

Efforts to reduce the prison population have focused on nonviolent drug offenders, but as Oliver Roeder pointed out, releasing all drug offenders from state and federal prison would reduce the prison population by only 14 percent.  In other words, it is unclear how deeply we could cut into the prison population without endangering the public.

Enter Colin Flaherty, stage right.

To his detractors, Colin Flaherty is a 21st-century D.W. Griffith, portraying blacks as inherently dangerous and criminal.  Flaherty denies having a racist agenda, describing himself as a journalist reporting politically incorrect facts.  (One of his early achievements was a series that helped free a man unjustly jailed for murder, who happened to be black.  How many of his critics can claim as much?)  Regardless of his motives, Flaherty’s YouTube channel is one of the few places one can witness the reality of violent street crime.

Ignoring the racial angle, the fact that Flaherty can find new footage of innocent people being brutally attacked by criminals demonstrates that street crime remains a major problem.  Particularly sick and disturbing was the death of seventy-four-year old Larry Brown, robbed and beaten to death by three teenagers.

Violent street crime of the type that claimed Larry Brown’s life imposes a cost on society beyond its direct victims.  Will other senior citizens in his neighborhood venture outside, or will they be incarcerated in their own homes by the fear of crime?

Many on the left believe that America’s high rate of incarceration stems from racial bias and overly punitive sentencing.  Conservatives looking to trim fat from the budget have become increasingly receptive to such arguments.  Seeing actual video footage of violent street crime makes it impossible to ignore the cost that crime imposes on society.

Time spent behind bars is a waste of life, and when that time results from excessively harsh sentencing, it represents an injustice.  However, in trying to correct the excesses of the tough-on-crime era, conservatives have to be aware of the consequences of getting this wrong.  As far as Colin Flaherty is reminding them of these costs, he is doing a public service.

Reform is an ambiguous word, open to interpretation.  Groups that support amnesty for illegal aliens and groups opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens both claim to support reform; one man’s reform is another man’s folly.

This September, the House Judiciary Committee will release its proposals for criminal justice reform.  The committee will likely suggest a number of measures, such as reducing mandatory minimum sentences, with the aim of reducing the United States’ burgeoning prison population.  In our era of hyper-polarization, reducing the prison population is a rare area of common ground among Republicans and Democrats.  Republicans want to cut costs, and Democrats want a less punitive judicial system.

Efforts to reduce the prison population have focused on nonviolent drug offenders, but as Oliver Roeder pointed out, releasing all drug offenders from state and federal prison would reduce the prison population by only 14 percent.  In other words, it is unclear how deeply we could cut into the prison population without endangering the public.

Enter Colin Flaherty, stage right.

To his detractors, Colin Flaherty is a 21st-century D.W. Griffith, portraying blacks as inherently dangerous and criminal.  Flaherty denies having a racist agenda, describing himself as a journalist reporting politically incorrect facts.  (One of his early achievements was a series that helped free a man unjustly jailed for murder, who happened to be black.  How many of his critics can claim as much?)  Regardless of his motives, Flaherty’s YouTube channel is one of the few places one can witness the reality of violent street crime.

Ignoring the racial angle, the fact that Flaherty can find new footage of innocent people being brutally attacked by criminals demonstrates that street crime remains a major problem.  Particularly sick and disturbing was the death of seventy-four-year old Larry Brown, robbed and beaten to death by three teenagers.

Violent street crime of the type that claimed Larry Brown’s life imposes a cost on society beyond its direct victims.  Will other senior citizens in his neighborhood venture outside, or will they be incarcerated in their own homes by the fear of crime?

Many on the left believe that America’s high rate of incarceration stems from racial bias and overly punitive sentencing.  Conservatives looking to trim fat from the budget have become increasingly receptive to such arguments.  Seeing actual video footage of violent street crime makes it impossible to ignore the cost that crime imposes on society.

Time spent behind bars is a waste of life, and when that time results from excessively harsh sentencing, it represents an injustice.  However, in trying to correct the excesses of the tough-on-crime era, conservatives have to be aware of the consequences of getting this wrong.  As far as Colin Flaherty is reminding them of these costs, he is doing a public service.

Chateau Heartiste: …the buzzy AmRen article titled “Confessions of a Public Defender” is a harrowing read, and provokes some illicit thought about where we are heading demographically. The impression one gets from this titillating exposure to the minds and values of the zoo animal underclass is that the moral senses… fairness, reciprocity, empathy, guilt, even a basic conception of right and wrong… may very well be unevenly distributed not only among members of the same race but between the races in general. If you quake at the idea that average IQ varies by race, how badly will your bowels shake if it’s discovered that some races are more, or less, morally evolved?

CH has gone out on limbs before that have proven to be supported by trunks of strong empirical oak, and we’ll go out on a limb again, one so far up the tree that few if any will have the balls to venture out with us. Morality and empathy are evolved traits, and like many human traits they will be found in varying degrees and complexities of expression among the world’s races. Given this, the civilized nations would do well to consider that their jurisprudence systems are incapable of impartially subsuming the less morally evolved in a manner that suits their own elevated moral sense. If you cannot or are unwilling to grasp that the defendant sitting across from you is closer in temperament and moral evolution to a feral beast than to your kin, you will forever be stricken with crippling doubt about the nature of your race’s achievements and philosophies.

Demographically, then, it becomes imperative that advanced peoples act to limit the fecundity of relative moral degenerates in their midst, or barring that to erect barriers against the incorporation of the upwardly moral and the downwardly amoral. And yet the exact opposite appears to be the rule of the land currently. Evolution is failing, thanks to a warped altruistic impulse that has provided and sustains a fitness advantage for morally infantile, and thus exceedingly dangerous, humans. Again, like the sperm bank scenario above, the state of nature has been upturned and bifurcated by a middleman — in this case, misplaced leftoid equalist generosity towards lesser people who would impulsively kill them without losing a wink of sleep — and traits that would normally get culled due to the dual pressures of sexual and natural selection become instead numerous and widespread.